Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Listen, I know you guys like to troll sidedish, Biffco, and the other Trump supporters here, but you can't sit here and write with a straight face that Lester Holt moderated the debate fairly.

You guys know that I am not a Trump supporter. I criticize him on radio nearly every week, and I won't be voting for him. I feel that Trump was what the Republican Party got for drifting away from its core principles, being too politically correct, while also obsessing with Tea Party nonsense while not really listening to what its own base really wanted.

But if there's something which I hate even more than Trump, it's the highly biased minefield which Republican candidates have to wade through in order to get elected.

I don't care how Holt is registered to vote. All I know is that he asked some very tough questions of Trump (for example, his tax returns and his Obama birther claims), but didn't ask a single tough question of Hillary. Not one. Go through the entire transcript and show me a single tough question Hillary was asked, if you think I'm incorrect.

It's not like there was a shortage of controversy from which the moderator could draw questions for Hillary. She and Trump BOTH have more baggage than any candidates in history. How could Holt go an entire debate without asking her a single question related to any of that controversy?

No questions about e-mail (remember, Trump briefly brought it up, not Holt). No questions about why she permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails when forced to hand over the server.

No questions about Benghazi.

No questions about the Clinton Foundation.

No questions about her health.

No questions about the shockingly high "speaking fees" she received from Wall Street firms, which could (and perhaps already have) create a conflict of interest.

No questions about her public attacking of any women who made accusations of sexual impropriety against her husband.

No questions about any other topic from the present or past where the Clintons have come under fire.

Obviously Holt couldn't ask about all of this stuff, but he didn't ask about ANY of it.

I remember being shocked about this as I watched the debate unfold.

Look, Trump screwed up the debate big time. He also could have brought up the above points, and he chose to largely ignore them. He came off as rambling, unprepared, short-tempered, and pretty much owned himself for the entire debate. There's no question about that.

But that doesn't take away from the very true point that the question were rigged against him.

Why did Holt do this? No idea. Perhaps he hates Trump. Perhaps he likes Hillary. Perhaps both. Perhaps he just put together a poor series of questions and didn't evaluate their fairness.

But anyone who mocks those for criticizing Holt's questions is just being unreasonably partisan and intentionally blind to the situation.

---

There were previously announced topics from which questions would be drawn. Most of those don't fall under the announced topics. They are also all irrelevant except for the deleted e-mails. Her health is relevant but there is no scandal about it, she got sick then she got better, wow big scandal.

---

Where were these previously announced topics? Can I see a list of them?

Are you telling me that there was a list of topics which only included areas critical of Trump, but not of Hillary? I doubt that.

I don't see how you can say the above topics are irrelevant. All of the above topics are far more relevant and important to discuss than whether or not Trump started the Obama birther conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Embedded Tweet

should be interesting

---

:noose

so assange patted himself on the back for being in business for 10 years and plugged a new book?

Quote:

---

The Wikileaks founder was outright asked by a journalist in the room if the future publications were likely to spell the end of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the United States. Assange admitted sheepishly, “There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications.”

---

http://www.mediaite.com/online/and-t...utely-nothing/

Did Dan Druff just complain that there were no questions about Benghazi at the debate? This is one of the great problems in America. He is one of the more serious, level headed Republicans and he is even a conspiracy loon. What would a good question be? "Secretary Clinton, do you think the 9 investigations into the incident in Benghazi prove that the Republicans are incapable of governing or does it prove they are corrupt?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Listen, I know you guys like to troll sidedish, Biffco, and the other Trump supporters here, but you can't sit here and write with a straight face that Lester Holt moderated the debate fairly.

You guys know that I am not a Trump supporter. I criticize him on radio nearly every week, and I won't be voting for him. I feel that Trump was what the Republican Party got for drifting away from its core principles, being too politically correct, while also obsessing with Tea Party nonsense while not really listening to what its own base really wanted.

But if there's something which I hate even more than Trump, it's the highly biased minefield which Republican candidates have to wade through in order to get elected.

I don't care how Holt is registered to vote. All I know is that he asked some very tough questions of Trump (for example, his tax returns and his Obama birther claims), but didn't ask a single tough question of Hillary. Not one. Go through the entire transcript and show me a single tough question Hillary was asked, if you think I'm incorrect.

It's not like there was a shortage of controversy from which the moderator could draw questions for Hillary. She and Trump BOTH have more baggage than any candidates in history. How could Holt go an entire debate without asking her a single question related to any of that controversy?

No questions about e-mail (remember, Trump briefly brought it up, not Holt). No questions about why she permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails when forced to hand over the server.

No questions about Benghazi.

No questions about the Clinton Foundation.

No questions about her health.

No questions about the shockingly high "speaking fees" she received from Wall Street firms, which could (and perhaps already have) create a conflict of interest.

No questions about her public attacking of any women who made accusations of sexual impropriety against her husband.

No questions about any other topic from the present or past where the Clintons have come under fire.

Obviously Holt couldn't ask about all of this stuff, but he didn't ask about ANY of it.

I remember being shocked about this as I watched the debate unfold.

Look, Trump screwed up the debate big time. He also could have brought up the above points, and he chose to largely ignore them. He came off as rambling, unprepared, short-tempered, and pretty much owned himself for the entire debate. There's no question about that.

But that doesn't take away from the very true point that the question were rigged against him.

Why did Holt do this? No idea. Perhaps he hates Trump. Perhaps he likes Hillary. Perhaps both. Perhaps he just put together a poor series of questions and didn't evaluate their fairness.

But anyone who mocks those for criticizing Holt's questions is just being unreasonably partisan and intentionally blind to the situation.

---

I agree with pretty much everything you said but especially the bolded part.

I love when liberals say "Hey, if you just would have nominated anyone other than Trump you would have won". That is such utter bullshit and they know it.. They would have attacked and slandered the Republican nominee just as hard as Trump. The only difference here is that Trump is not a career politician whose background has been carefully manicured, so there is more material to dig through. Plus Trump is a shoot from the hip guy so the press can manufacture more scandal.

But the real culprit here is that the Mainstream Media and Liberals are in bed together and will always attempt to control the conversation and destroy the Republican nominee. Think about it, all these "journalists" graduated from liberal colleges where they are indoctrinated to think that Republicans and/or conservatives are just a bunch of assholes. They went to school and sat around for years and watched shit like the Daily Show skewer Republicans, willingly brainwashed.

Lets face it, Democrats are just better at playing the ridicule game through Hollywood and the compliant MSM.

But….there are plenty of people left in this country who see through this charade and want to fight back. Hence the rise of Trump, whatever you may think of him. Now we just have to hope there are enough people in America who can see what's going on and come out on election day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

You answered your own question more or less. It's not a scandal on it's own. It's just more evidence that Trump is a hypocrite and a liar. Also the logic, that since he's so good at dodging taxes and bribing government officials, that he's some how better at stopping that kinda behavior vs some one that at least has some morals and is at least aware of the concept of ethics is kinda retarded. It makes sense, if you think that criminals are best at catching criminals or that prisoners are best at guarding prisoners, but if you believe that, then the only explanation is that you're a fucking retard.

Trump is the elite he's claiming to fight against.

---

But this isn't about dodging taxes or bringing government officials.

This is about Trump utilizing a legal tax deduction based upon a massive business loss he took in 1995.

Everyone always seeks to pay the least taxes legally possible. In fact, you would be foolish not to do this.

If Trump were caught engaging in illegal tax evasion (or even if there was a gray area to where it resembled tax evasion, though not criminally prosecutable), I would understand.

Instead, the left is all, "LOL Trump didn't pay taxes! He lost money in 1995 and then got to carry over those losses for many years, so he paid no tax! Shame, shame!"

And I'm sitting here thinking, "Would any of these people have paid taxes if they had legal ways to avoid doing so? They'd all have done the exact same thing."

I think it's just a dumb thing to use to attack him. Perhaps it's effective in that it might piss off some of his blue-collar followers who don't fully understand the situation, but from an intellectually honest standpoint, there is no story here.

---

We don't know if it's legal or illegal creative accounting. What we do know is that Trump never lost more than 900 million dollars in cash before 1995. It's a paper loss and we don't know exactly how scummy it is. From past experience with Trump it's likely extra special scummy with amateur hour execution. Large majority of the tax exemptions and loop holes that exist for the likes of Trump only exist because of corruption. Very rarely are they super secret accounting magic tricks that outwit the IRS in their own game.

It's about 99% that large majority of that 900 million is completely imaginary dollars created to avoid paying future taxes in very real dollars. And no none of this is something i would have done in Trumps position.

Obv. Trump can very easily prove all of this wrong by just releasing his tax returns, but before that happens we are allowed to assume the worst every single time his taxes are mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

There were previously announced topics from which questions would be drawn. Most of those don't fall under the announced topics. They are also all irrelevant except for the deleted e-mails. Her health is relevant but there is no scandal about it, she got sick then she got better, wow big scandal.

---

Where were these previously announced topics? Can I see a list of them?

Are you telling me that there was a list of topics which only included areas critical of Trump, but not of Hillary? I doubt that.

I don't see how you can say the above topics are irrelevant. All of the above topics are far more relevant and important to discuss than whether or not Trump started the Obama birther conspiracy.

---

There were 3 broad themes that were announced ahead of time. One was "achieving prosperity," another was "securing America," and the other one escapes me at the moment. I think most news stories posted prior to the debate would mention them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

What about my other post below that, hard to believe his microphone wouldn't be guaranteed to work if they are expecting 100m to be watching

Done on purpose to fuck with his head, that's cheating

---

How do you know it was done on purpose? If it was, how do you know who did it?

---

I don't know but I would lay 3000 to 500 that it was, that I can tell you

AND BIG SHOUT OUT TO ASSANGE LAST NIGHT ON NO LEAKS, WE MUST GIVE MIKE PENCE THE RESPECT & ATTENTION HE DESERVES

Druff, there is literally a zero percent chance that any of these moderators will bring up Benghazi. Trump should have been skilled/prepared enough to do so, but no way Lester Holt would bring it up.

Also, Trump made a huuuuge mistake by not releasing his tax returns in May/June after he locked up the Rep nom. Unless he never intends to release them, which may very well have been his plan all along. To have to do it now, just 30+ days before the election, is political malpractice. And while there are no doubt legit business reasons for whatever his tax returns show, those reasons only play well with those who are already on the Trump train. The Clinton and Obama machines are focused and pandering to the undecided/anti-Trumps at this point.

Alex Jones Rips ‘Hillary Butt-Plug’ Julian Assange After Disappointing WikiLeaks Announcement

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alex-...-announcement/

Quote:

---

“You said it would get her indicted!” Jones fumed. “He was promising this damning evidence and he doesn’t release it now 34 days out and now he’s saying he’ll release it by the end of the year, so that smacks of a sell-out.”

---

rofl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

How do you know it was done on purpose? If it was, how do you know who did it?

---

I don't know but I would lay 3000 to 500 that it was, that I can tell you

AND BIG SHOUT OUT TO ASSANGE LAST NIGHT ON NO LEAKS, WE MUST GIVE MIKE PENCE THE RESPECT & ATTENTION HE DESERVES

---

Yeah pay attention to Pence. Even the people in his own state are sick of him. I happen to be one of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...nant/91492758/

Trump rented space to an Iranian bank with ties to terrorism and Iran's nuclear program.

This is worse than anything the Clinton Foundation ever did, particularly since Trump profited directly from this while the Clintons never made a dime from their Foundation.

Is Trump really in bed with a terrorist Iranian bank? No. He rents space to those who will pay for it. The point is that if you have extensive connections and experience in financial or political or whatever world, you're bound to make some acquaintances who later turn out to be unsavory. Everything the Trumpets are trying to stick to Clinton falls into this category of "nothing there, but easy to imply something scandalous is happening."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Did Dan Druff just complain that there were no questions about Benghazi at the debate? This is one of the great problems in America. He is one of the more serious, level headed Republicans and he is even a conspiracy loon. What would a good question be? "Secretary Clinton, do you think the 9 investigations into the incident in Benghazi prove that the Republicans are incapable of governing or does it prove they are corrupt?"

---

Benghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.

The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.

If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...nant/91492758/

Trump rented space to an Iranian bank with ties to terrorism and Iran's nuclear program.

This is worse than anything the Clinton Foundation ever did, particularly since Trump profited directly from this while the Clintons never made a dime from their Foundation.

Is Trump really in bed with a terrorist Iranian bank? No. He rents space to those who will pay for it. The point is that if you have extensive connections and experience in financial or political or whatever world, you're bound to make some acquaintances who later turn out to be unsavory. Everything the Trumpets are trying to stick to Clinton falls into this category of "nothing there, but easy to imply something scandalous is happening."

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Did Dan Druff just complain that there were no questions about Benghazi at the debate? This is one of the great problems in America. He is one of the more serious, level headed Republicans and he is even a conspiracy loon. What would a good question be? "Secretary Clinton, do you think the 9 investigations into the incident in Benghazi prove that the Republicans are incapable of governing or does it prove they are corrupt?"

---

Benghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.

The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.

If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?

---

You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Did Dan Druff just complain that there were no questions about Benghazi at the debate? This is one of the great problems in America. He is one of the more serious, level headed Republicans and he is even a conspiracy loon. What would a good question be? "Secretary Clinton, do you think the 9 investigations into the incident in Benghazi prove that the Republicans are incapable of governing or does it prove they are corrupt?"

---

shill much??

and LOL @ el gallo's green rep "this"

How bout u bring it up cuz 100m ppl are watching compared to 1m? at her hearing, the debate's main goal is to inform voters moron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Benghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.

The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.

If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?

---

You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.

---

No, it means you have no moral compass. It means you don't care about others as long as you get your goodie bag. This is either actually about a trial to convict her on something or you actually read the first couple of sentences of what I posted saying that in the voters eye, that's not what Benghazi stands for. You literally cannot read the words and process them. It deflects off of your brain like it has hardened armor suffered by decades of mind numbing abuse at the hands of newspeakers.

And i'm not the least bit surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.

---

No, it means you have no moral compass. It means you don't care about others as long as you get your goodie bag. This is either actually about a trial to convict her on something or you actually read the first couple of sentences of what I posted saying that in the voters eye, that's not what Benghazi stands for. You literally cannot read the words and process them. It deflects off of your brain like it has hardened armor suffered by decades of mind numbing abuse at the hands of newspeakers.

And i'm not the least bit surprised.

---

:this
:hof

Im fairly certain Ecuador yanked Assange's chain and said there were limits to their good graces, especially considering the most obvious effect of him tanking Clinton's campaign would be the cessation of all immigration into the United States.

His body language was really interesting last night, he seemed unbelievably uncomfortable, constantly fidgeting, very disorganized. I mean, this from a guy who had more or less the worlds eyes on him, and he's up there in a t-shirt, fumbling with books and talking about how he cant hire more people if they dont turn a profit.

Either someone told him to cool it or the 'big story' he got turned out to be fugazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Benghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.

The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.

If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?

---

You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.

---

I don't want to get into a long Benghazi debate here, because that's straying from the point I was trying to make. Benghazi was one of several possible "tough" debate questions which could have been posed to Hillary, and none were. They didn't even ask her about the e-mail which was unbelievable, given the way that has dominated headlines for the past year and a half (plus her proven wrongdoing and coverup of the situation).

Clinton supporters keep falling back on the "she was investigated for XXXXX and nothing came of it" excuse for all of her scandals. That doesn't equate to innocence, and as 4D pointed out, it was more of a judgment issue than a legal issue.

The nonsensical statement about the YouTube video was either a bad attempt at a lie/cover-up or was an indication that Hillary had no clue what the fuck was going on. Either way, it wasn't a good look.

Since Hillary was "cleared" for her role in it, the left has seized upon that to loudly scoff at anyone who dares utter the word "Benghazi" these days. They equate you with an Obama birther type conspiracy nut.

In reality, Hillary screwed it up badly, and there's no way to explain it truthfully which puts her in a positive light.